Case Law Details
Chandrasekaran Anand, Proprietor of Sree Arunachalam Textiles Vs Office of Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Summary: In the case of Chandrasekaran Anand v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) [Writ Petition No. 13487 of 2024], the Madras High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an appellate order that dismissed an appeal due to its late filing. The appeal was filed after the condonable period ended, but the petitioner, Mr. Chandrasekaran Anand, argued that the delay was caused by his accountant’s hospitalization. The court found merit in the petitioner’s claim and decided to allow the appeal on its merits, instructing the respondent to consider it without regard to the limitation issue. This decision aligns with previous cases where courts have considered principles of natural justice over strict adherence to procedural timelines. This ruling contrasts with other high court decisions, such as those from the Kerala and Allahabad High Courts, which upheld the rejection of time-barred appeals under similar circumstances.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Chandrasekaran Anand v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) [Writ Petition No. 13487 of 2024 dated June 11, 2024], has allowed the writ petition filed against the order dismissing the appeal filed beyond the condonable period due to Accountant illness and thereby, directed the Appellant to consider the appeal filed on merits without going into the question of limitation.
Facts:
Mr. Chandrasekaran Anand (“the Petitioner”), Proprietor, filed a writ petition against appellate order dated March 21, 2024 (“the Impugned Order”), wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) on the grounds of limitation.. as the same was filed beyond the condonable period as it had ended on February 16, 2024. The Petitioner contended that delay was due to Petitioner’s accountant, being hospitalized during the said time period. However, the Respondent did not take into consideration the aforesaid fact and dismissed the appeal filed on the ground of limitation.
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 13487 of 2024 considering the merits of the case allowed the appeal filed and directed the Respondent to consider the appeal filed on merits without going into the question of limitation.
Our Comments:
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jayanta Ghosh and Ors. v. State of W.B. [W.P.A No. 230 of 2024 dated March 05, 2024] and Murtaza B Kaukawala v. State Of W.B. And Ors. [MAT/1361/2023 dated October 18, 2023], by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowed the appeal filed beyond the limitation period interlalia holding that an Appellate Authority cannot dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation without granting any opportunity of hearing. The delay can be condoned if the principles of natural justice has been violated by not providing the opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and the period prescribed for filing of appeal is not final.
However, The Hon’ble Kerala High Court inM/s Penuel Nexus Pvt Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin [WP(C) No. 15574 of 2023 dated June 13, 2023] held that the Additional Commissioner (“the Respondent”) is right in rejecting the time-barred appeal as section 107 of the CGST Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Further, The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Yadav Steels v. Additional Commissioner and Anr. [Writ Tax No. 975 of 2023 dated February 15, 2024], dismissed the writ petition, thereby holding that, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable for appeal filed under Section 107 of the UPGST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An appellate order dated 21.03.2024 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that such appeal was barred by limitation is challenged in this writ petition. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in respect of mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B and the auto populated GSTR 2A. Such proceedings culminated in an order dated 16.10.2023. Such order was carried in appeal by the petitioner on 13.03.2024. The appeal was rejected on the ground that the condonable period expired on 16.02.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had placed on record evidence that an Accountant called Mr.Thiru Kannan was engaged to handle GST compliances, and such Accountant was hospitalized during the relevant period. She points out that the discharge summary of Mr.Thiru Kannan was placed on record and that the appeal was rejected in spite of the same.
3. Mr. C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent.
4. The facts material for the disposal of this writ petition are undisputed. The order in original was received by the petitioner on 16.10.2023. The period of three months from such date expired on 16.01.2024 and the further period of thirty days expired on 16.02.2024. The petitioner’s appeal was presented on 13.03.2024, which is only twenty five days beyond the condonable period. The petitioner has placed on record documents corroborating the assertion that the Accountant was unwell during the relevant period. In the facts and circumstances outlined above, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner’s appeal be received and disposed of on merits.
5. Therefore, W.P.No.13487 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the petitioner’s appeal on merits without going into the question of limitation, if such appeal is represented within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.14648 of 2024 is closed.
*****
For more information watch: No benefit of Limitation Act for filling appeal under GST Law || CA (Adv) Bimal Jain
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
